Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on the standard of care in rest homes in New Zealand – producer went undercover as a caregiver for five days in a rest home on Auckland’s North Shore – presenter and undercover producer raised a number of concerns regarding the quality of care being provided in the rest home – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – owners provided with an adequate opportunity to respond to allegations – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide significant viewpoints on the controversial issue discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – undercover producer’s opinions and impressions not statements of fact – decline to determine whether undercover producer contracted an MRSA infection from rest home – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – legitimate use of covert filming – in the public interest to broadcast the material – item treated…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – item on a man named Paul Cleave and his attempts to get his camera repaired – item explained that Mr Cleave had received a loan camera from the retailer – Mr Cleave was shown stating that he was not going to return the loan camera – the presenter made a number of comments about him taking the loan camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, balance and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – the Authority received conflicting evidence on two statements complained about and declined to determine them – the other three statements complained about were accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a fair representation of Mr Cleave’s conduct – item’s change in focus was prompted by Mr Cleave’s own behaviour – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Mr Cleave signed a consent form allowing…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – promo broadcast on 3 February 2004 – used excerpt from an item about events in Northern Ireland from One News item broadcast on 15 October 2002 – promo did not refer to events since then – allegedly misleadingFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – item broadcast shortly before 6. 00pm news was promo for Spooks – used part of news item from One News broadcast on 15 October 2002 – balance not an issue – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the forthcoming drama series Spooks was broadcast on TV One shortly before the start of One News at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2004. The promo began with an excerpt from an item broadcast on One News on 15 October 2002....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintHolmes – air accident – advice for travellers to dress as for a bonfire – offensive – sensational – distasteful FindingsStandard G14 – not applicable Standard G16 – perhaps flippant comments but would not cause alarm Standard G20 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 3 November 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm, gave advice to travellers about how to improve their chances of surviving an aircraft disaster. The item followed an aircraft accident in Taipei. R P Worthington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the subject matter had been handled in a distasteful manner, and was inflammatory and biased. In the complainant’s view, the way in which the item had been written was particularly offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq – included pictures of tortured and humiliated prisoners – allegedly excessively violent and unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard 9 and guidelines 9a, 9e, 9f (children’s interests) – major news item – sombre introduction included warning – children’s interests considered – not upheld Standard 10 and guideline 10g (violence) – care and discretion exercised – warning included – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Previously unseen pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were screened in an item on One News broadcast on TV One beginning at 6. 00pm on 16 February 2006. The item reported the way the American guards had allegedly tortured and humiliated the Iraqi prisoners....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on duck hunting – hunter pointed a rifle at the camera – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – hunter’s action was intended to be humorous and light-hearted – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6....

ComplaintMercury Lane – promo – reference to pubic hair – broadcast during Son of God on Good Friday at 10. 30am – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – spoken not visual reference – context – no uphold Standard 9 – children not unfamiliar with nudity – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A question to an artist about the public reaction to the portrayal of pubic hair was included in a promo for Mercury Lane, a programme about the arts. The promo was broadcast at about 10. 30am on Good Friday during the screening of the documentary Son of God, which reported the results of a scientific examination into issues raised about Jesus Christ. [2] Carole Bennett complained that the broadcast of the promo, during family viewing time, was disgusting....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – items investigated complaint against The Battery Clinic and its manager, the complainant, relating to a system developed to extend the life of batteries in older hybrid vehicles – experts expressed concerns about the safety of the system – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Fair Go had a sufficient basis for presenting the view that the system developed by the complainant was potentially dangerous – complainant provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to claims and to defend his invention, and his perspective was fairly presented in the broadcasts – very high public interest in reporting on matters that have the potential to impact on public safety – overall, complainant and the Battery Clinic were treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies related to mechanical and engineering matters outside the Authority’s expertise…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported on a new prenatal test for Down Syndrome. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item discriminated against people with Down Syndrome and was unbalanced because it did not show a situation where identifying a baby with Down Syndrome was viewed positively. Comments suggesting that a low probability of having a baby with Down Syndrome was ‘good news’ were clearly the personal opinions of the interviewees and were not endorsed by the programme. The item itself made no judgement about the test or the outcome of testing in terms of whether a foetus diagnosed as having Down Syndrome was a good or a bad thing. The item was squarely focused on the benefits of the new test in that it was more accurate, and less invasive than other procedures....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....

The Authority has upheld a complaint about a broadcast which referred to the owners of the road cycling team ‘Israel Start-up Nation’ as ‘Jewish billionaires’. The complainant submitted the broadcast was offensive and racist as it made an unnecessary connection between money and Jewish people. The Authority found the effect of the broadcast was to embed and reflect harmful stereotypes, albeit unintended. The harm in this instance outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, and therefore the Authority upheld the complaint. Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration No order...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the British cartoon, Grizzly Tales, which was classified G (General), featured a young girl called Victoria Spew who threw tantrums until she vomited to get her way. At the end of the episode, Victoria was sucked into the vacuum cleaner her mother had bought to clean up after her. The cartoon showed Victoria’s teeth being pulled from her gums, and organs and body parts falling into the bag. The episode ended with Victoria’s body parts trapped in the vacuum cleaner. The Authority upheld a complaint that this episode of Grizzly Tales was unsuitable for young children. The programme was classified G and so was required to be suitable for all children under the age of 14....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-046–051:Whyte and 5 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-046–051 PDF1. 94 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Real Life: The World’s Most Enhanced Woman and Me – promo for documentary about presenter’s search for woman with largest breast implants in the world – contained footage of a number of women with very large breasts – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was relatively inexplicit and was not salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for The World’s Most Enhanced Woman and Me, a documentary in which the programme presenter went in search of the woman with the largest breast implants in the world, was broadcast on TV One at 6....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-078:Miller and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-078 PDF659. 74 KB...